The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District v. The City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, Sherrell Construction, Inc.
2016 Mo. LEXIS 1
Mo.2016Background
- Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD), a public political subdivision, alleges that a city street project and contractors pumped concrete slurry into MSD sewer pipes, hardening them and causing about $66,860 in damage.
- MSD sued the City of Bellefontaine Neighbors for inverse condemnation (constitutional takings), and sued contractors for trespass and negligence; after amendment it added negligence and trespass claims against the City.
- The City moved to dismiss, arguing article I, section 26 protects only private property and sovereign immunity bars tort suits by one public entity against another; the trial court granted dismissal and certified the ruling for appeal.
- On review the Missouri Supreme Court treated the pleadings as true and reviewed the dismissal de novo.
- The Court held MSD’s inverse-condemnation claim fails because §26's plain text limits relief to “private property,” and MSD’s tort claims are barred by sovereign immunity absent a statutory or recognized common-law waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (MSD) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether article I, §26 (just compensation) applies when a public entity’s property is taken by another public entity | §26 should be read to cover public property or courts should interpret “private” to include public property because policy favors compensation | §26 plainly limits remedy to "private property"; courts cannot add "public" where Constitution does not | Court: §26 unambiguous—protects only private property; no constitutional takings claim for public property |
| Whether federal precedent (U.S. Const. Takings Clause) requires state to compensate other public entities | 50 Acres and related federal cases show “private property” can include non-federal public property; so MSD should be compensated | Federal takings jurisprudence differs; Carmack and state law permit different treatment of state/local public property; 50 Acres not dispositive for state-to-state/public-entity takings | Court: 50 Acres not controlling; states may treat public-to-public takings differently; Missouri law provides no such right |
| Whether MSD may recover in tort (negligence/trespass) from the City for damage to public property | Tort law (and some out-of-state cases) allow recovery by public entities against other public entities; sovereign immunity should not bar such suits between governments | Sovereign immunity is the rule; absent statutory waiver or recognized exception (e.g., proprietary function, consent), immunity bars tort suits by one public entity against another | Court: Sovereign immunity applies to suits between public entities; MSD alleged no statutory waiver or pleaded a proprietary-function exception, so tort claims barred |
| Whether the Court may consider framers’ intent or extrinsic evidence to expand §26 remedy | (Implicit) Policy and fairness support reading §26 to include public entities; extrinsic evidence could inform interpretation | Plain, unambiguous constitutional text controls; Court should not add words or rewrite Constitution—policy choices are for legislature/people | Court: Plain meaning controls; no reading of framers’ debate necessary because text is unambiguous; policy changes belong to legislature or constitutional amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n v. Anderson, 735 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. banc 1987) (describing condemnation procedures and two-step process)
- Independence-Nat’l Educ. Ass’n v. Independence Sch. Dist., 223 S.W.3d 131 (Mo. banc 2007) (court refused to read additional words into unambiguous constitutional text)
- United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1984) (holding federal "private property" in Takings Clause includes non-federal property for federal takings context)
- United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (U.S. 1946) (noting federal compensation obligations differ when takings involve state/local public property)
- Jones v. State Highway Comm’n, 557 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. banc 1977) (judicial abrogation of sovereign immunity prior to legislative reversal)
- Bartley v. Special Sch. Dist. of St. Louis Cnty., 649 S.W.2d 864 (Mo. banc 1983) (interpreting legislative reinstatement of sovereign immunity and requiring strict construction of statutory waivers)
- Southers v. City of Farmington, 263 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. banc 2008) (discussing governmental vs. proprietary functions and immunity)